set_control_point

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It mentions optional handle adjustment but omits critical details: what happens with invalid point_index, behavior for non-bezier curves, whether changes are permanent, and any side effects on linked data. The description is vague about the tool's mutation characteristics.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured in a bulleted parameter list, avoiding prose bloat. It is front-loaded with a clear action statement. However, it could be slightly more concise by grouping similar parameters (e.g., handle_left/handle_right types).

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers parameter semantics but lacks context on return values, error handling, and prerequisites (e.g., curve object existence). It is adequate for basic usage but incomplete for robust agent decision-making.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It adds meaningful explanations for all 8 parameters, including format hints (comma-separated x,y,z) and type constraints (FREE, ALIGNED, etc.). However, it could be more precise about the expected string format for coordinates.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's action: 'Move a curve control point and optionally adjust its bezier handles.' This is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_vertex_position (for mesh vertices) or set_vertex_positions.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., set_vertex_position, get_control_points). There are no prerequisites or exclusion criteria mentioned, leaving the agent without context for appropriate invocation.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.